New Orleans' Blessing; New Orleans' Curse

Kelman's analysis might make people think that re-building New Orleans is not a very good idea. Even though Kelman does not specifically say that New Orleans should not be rebuilt the idea is still addressed. Kelman shows how New Orleans has been an accident waiting to happen. He talks about how bad the location is for a town. Kelman does point out though that the area is good for business. But the overall point of his article is how inconvenient the area is to its surroundings.

Kelman article

Kelman's article would cause people to strongly consider the possibility of not rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He gives many points that defend this position. He discusses how the location and environment of the city are great disadvantages when it comes to weather and natural disasters. He brings up the good point that it is a very suitable place (situation) for business, but then states that the site of the city is more critical, and concludes that it is not a good place for a city such as New Orleans to be located.

New Orleans

Kelman's analysis shows that he does not think New Orleans should be rebuilt. He discusses how they thought it was a safe place and how they thought they were moving all of the people into a safe environment during the storm but even that was destroyed. He does not think it should be restored because it is not safe, water is constantly rushing in and flooding New Orleans and the only way available to protect it also damages the location because water is hard to get out then. levees are supposed to keep the water from the Mississippi River out; however, they dont always do that and massive floods are the result. Kelman feels that the damage to the city is too strong and there is not a sufficient plan to contain the water so the area should not be rebuilt.

Katrina vs. New Orleans

Kelman provides such good reasons for why New Orleans would not have been restored. He made it a simple fact that New Orleans is a bad area for people to live because the site may never improve. The higher they protect against water, the harder it is to get water out. Since it is so difficult to live there, some people may have speculated not restoring it at all. Kelman states many valid reasons not to, and he is very convincing of the opinion.

Response: Kelman essay

3. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there was speculation that New Orleans would not, or should not, be rebuilt. What does Kelman's analysis contribute to the question of whether to rebuild the city?

--ejfleitz